Questioning Wikipedia's innovation-killing evasion policy.

You can talk about anything related to Wikipedia criticism here.
User avatar
CMAwatch
Sucks Critic
Posts: 305
Joined: Sun Oct 27, 2019 1:26 pm
Location: Community Moderation Abuse Watch
Has thanked: 105 times
Been thanked: 24 times

Questioning Wikipedia's innovation-killing evasion policy.

Post by CMAwatch » Mon Nov 11, 2019 3:50 am

This essay is supposed to become a future article on WikiTop.cc.
You are encouraged to share this to Wikipediocracy or anywhere else.


Disclaimer: I don't hate Wikipedia. Actually, quite the opposite, at least their concept. But Wikipedia has flaws that they refuse to acknowledge due to confirmation bias.

Evidently, no matter how civil, friendly, logical and sincere one tries to communicate to some people (especially Bbb23), it just gets neglected, silenced or labelled as an attack.

Wikipedia claims to embrace constructive criticism, but when someone actually gives constructive criticism, it is labelled as “attack page”.

Also, when their administrators evidently violate their own policies (e.g. Bbb23 has repeatedly violated WP:SOCKLEGIT by exposing legitimate sock puppets), they can just get away with it. Zero consequences.

> “checks must be made only in order to prevent or reduce potential or actual disruption, or to investigate credible, legitimate concerns of bad faith editing.”


There are probably many cases we have not heard of, but Bbb23's coarse policy breach, legal immunity and gaslighting has been proven in the curious case of Handroid7.

Also read: This important Reddit comment. (some things I mention here are already mentioned there)

The logical purpose behind the ban evasion policy is simple: Prevent damage.

There was absolutely no single logical reason to block Handroid7, because his >1000 edits since his account creation were clean, legitimate and productive. Exactly what Wikipedia supposedly wants.

His previous account was permanently blocked for a few anti-circumcision edits.
A few anti-circumcision edits might have justified a one-day ban, but definitely not a permanent ban.
Also, according to the ban comment, there had been personal attacks, but I could find zero personal attacks looking through his recent edits. What is their definition of a “personal attack”?

These few anti-circumcision edits are pretty much nothing compared to Bbb23's mass-deletion of legitimate content, yet Bbb23 never gets blocked.
I also bet that if any user had blanked the exact same pages Bbb23 has deleted, that user would have been blocked.
How come Bbb23 is allowed to harm Wikipedia?

Handroid7 has evidently proven (and again) that he has good faith. In fact, he was a very prolific editor.

These are just two of dozens of legitimate articles created by Handroid7.

According to Handroid7's meta talk page, ArbCom has rated his Bbb23 report as an attack page.
Presumably, because of one phrase out of the entire thing:“(Guess: Why would he delete it, if he could? Maybe to cover up something shady about him?)”

Does this one phrase make the entire page being considered as an attack page? How paranoid are they?

Also, that phrase is actually a legitimate thesis, regarding Bbb23's suppressive behaviour.

Also, how is Handroid7 expected to not be emotionally hurt after some admin comes and destroys months of his prolific work? Also, then humiliating him and shutting his mouth despite he tried to be as civil as possible.



Bbb23 also exposed his account Anonymous201910 that has done exactly zero edits on the English Wikipedia.
The account Anonymous201910 was used on the German Wikipedia for legitimate purposes (asking a sensitive question on their reference desk), and then got blocked there for allegedly wasting time (WP:NOTHERE), by User:Hyperdieter, presumably the equivalent of Bbb23 in German. But the German Wikipedia is out of scope for now.

Side note: I wonder why exactly Handroid7 was asked by Bbb23 to disclose his accounts. Bbb23 can check it for himself using his tools! What is the point of that question? Apparently none.

Show me one example of Bbb23 putting so much work and dedication into creating, like Handroid7, instead of destroying and demolishing.

Wikipedia is made for readers. And those readers care about contents and information.

If a formerly blocked user writes great content, no reader of Wikipedia cares about that past block. There is not a single logical reason to block that user.
But there are logical reasons for not blocking that user.
Blocking a good user withholds readers from good and interesting contents he could have written.

Of course, Handroid7 should have indeed requested an unblock on his previous account instead of just creating a new account, according to policy.
My best guesses are:
* Handroid7 didn't know that before creating a new account, one needs to get the previous one unblocked, in order to be compliant to their policy.
* He misunderstood WP:CLEANSTART.
* He accidentially referred to the wrong Chris Watts on a talk page edit, and did not want that mistake to be associated with his identity on Wikipedia, which is understandable.

In all three cases, there was still no logical reason to block his new account, because it has done absolutely zero damage to Wikipedia, but the opposite.

One evidently can not claim Handroid7 has bad faith, or is nothere, because he made over 1000 clean edits with his new account, including very good draft articles, all of which were destroyed by Bbb23.

In other words: Bbb23 has evidently damaged Wikipedia more in 1 minute than Handroid7 in his entire life.
Yet, Bbb23 faces not even one second of block, because he is evidently legally immune on Wikipedia.

This is just the tip of the iceberg. If you find any more cases of Bbb23 misbehaving, please post them here.


TL;DR:

When the ban evasion policy prevents innovation and good contents, it goes against Wikipedia's own purposes and fundamentals.

Readers, the people who Wikipedia was built for. care about contents and knowledge, not whether user XY has done some minor mistake a long time ago.

If there is anything to add, I will add a post.

User avatar
CrowsNest
Sucks Maniac
Posts: 4459
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2018 4:50 am
Been thanked: 3 times

Re: Questioning Wikipedia's innovation-killing evasion polic

Post by CrowsNest » Mon Nov 11, 2019 1:55 pm

You are of course missing an important detail. Wikipedia is manifestly not for readers, it is for editors. That is the root of the approach that says it doesn't matter what someone does as an editor, only what their status is, i.e., are they allowed to do it. The concept of banishment, of demarcation of people into insiders and outsiders, is what Wikipedia is all about. It has absolutely nothing to do with readers. Nothing. Maybe not by design, but it is the inevitable result of the design.

When there is nothing keeping an average editor on Wikipedia except the meagre rewards of grinding away for free (and sure, many of them deceive themselves into thinking it is not a purely selfish pastime, that it is somehow for the readers, which is total horseshit) it makes perfect sense for the Administration to make sure they don't start to feel like playing by the rules doesn't have it's own rewards. Lossely speaking of course, recognizing that most of their rules are bent and even broken on a routine basis, by those who absolutely consider themselves insiders.

Take all those people who defended Eric Corbett for example. He could get away with virtually anything, just not sock-puppetry. It turns out very few Wikipedians are actually so scummy, so deceitful, so absolutely evil, that they would knowingly help Eric Corbett sock around his block, just because he is too proud, too stupid, and frankly too much of a coward, to take his fair share of responsibility and try to change.

User avatar
CMAwatch
Sucks Critic
Posts: 305
Joined: Sun Oct 27, 2019 1:26 pm
Location: Community Moderation Abuse Watch
Has thanked: 105 times
Been thanked: 24 times

Re: Questioning Wikipedia's innovation-killing evasion polic

Post by CMAwatch » Tue Nov 12, 2019 2:22 am

CrowsNest wrote:Take all those people who defended Eric Corbett for example. He could get away with virtually anything, just not sock-puppetry. It turns out very few Wikipedians are actually so scummy, so deceitful, so absolutely evil, that they would knowingly help Eric Corbett sock around his block, just because he is too proud, too stupid, and frankly too much of a coward, to take his fair share of responsibility and try to change.



WOW! He was blocked so, so, so often! Yet, he was unblocked each time.

And when Handroid7 does just a few quickly-reverted anti-circumcision edits on his previous account, then instant permanent ban.
And when he did never repeat that mistake even once on his new account:

* Permanent ban
* Humiliation
* Mouth shut
* Bbb23 destroys months of his precious work and gets away with it.
* Gets called out for attacking Bbb23 for one phrase in the entire documentation that is not even quite an attack.

Double standard of century.

They should have embraced the prolific work of Handroid7, not screwed him over.

Some users are legally immune (Bbb23), semi-immune (Eric Corbett), while others get cyber-screwed for a few minor missteps (Handroid7).

But I consider Handroid7 a hero.
Attachments
xJJdB(2).zip
(39.23 KiB) Downloaded 36 times

User avatar
CMAwatch
Sucks Critic
Posts: 305
Joined: Sun Oct 27, 2019 1:26 pm
Location: Community Moderation Abuse Watch
Has thanked: 105 times
Been thanked: 24 times

Mass-deletion

Post by CMAwatch » Tue Nov 12, 2019 1:48 pm

Bbb23's mass-deletion of Handroid7's legitimate, wonderful content and months of work proves what kind of a person Bbb23 is.

Mankind needs fewer of those.

I genuinely hope that Bbb23 does not reproduce his toxic genes.

User avatar
Abd
Sucks Warrior
Posts: 742
Joined: Mon Nov 27, 2017 11:22 pm
Has thanked: 74 times
Been thanked: 41 times

Re: Questioning Wikipedia's innovation-killing evasion polic

Post by Abd » Tue Nov 12, 2019 2:00 pm

CMAwatch wrote:This essay is supposed to become a future article on WikiTop.cc.
You are encouraged to share this to Wikipediocracy or anywhere else.
I'll let you know when it's ready.
Wikipedia is made for readers.

Where does it say that? You made that up.

Text size appears to be broken within quoted material. . . .

User avatar
CMAwatch
Sucks Critic
Posts: 305
Joined: Sun Oct 27, 2019 1:26 pm
Location: Community Moderation Abuse Watch
Has thanked: 105 times
Been thanked: 24 times

Re: Questioning Wikipedia's innovation-killing evasion polic

Post by CMAwatch » Wed Nov 13, 2019 3:25 am

Abd wrote:
CMAwatch wrote:
Wikipedia is made for readers.

Where does it say that? You made that up.


They did not say it in exact words, as far as I can recall, but:

On “five pillars of Wikipedia”, they state: “Wikipedia is an encyclopedia.” (duh!)

It even says that below their logo.

And what is an Encyclopedia?

“An encyclopedia or encyclopaedia is a reference work[…]


In other words: An encyclopedia, by definition, is built for readers.

Conclusion: Bbb23 does not understand what Wikipedia is.

User avatar
CMAwatch
Sucks Critic
Posts: 305
Joined: Sun Oct 27, 2019 1:26 pm
Location: Community Moderation Abuse Watch
Has thanked: 105 times
Been thanked: 24 times

Re: Questioning Wikipedia's innovation-killing evasion polic

Post by CMAwatch » Wed Nov 13, 2019 9:48 pm

[quote=CMAwatch]Does this one phrase make the entire page being considered as an attack page? How paranoid are they?[/quote]

Also known as selective bias or selection bias.

Aren't they supposed to be neutral? (WP:TOOLMISUSE)

(WP:TOOLMISUSE) – Conflict of interest or non-neutrality – Administrators should not normally use their tools in matters in which they are personally involved (for example, in a content dispute in which they are a party). See Involved admins.

User avatar
CMAwatch
Sucks Critic
Posts: 305
Joined: Sun Oct 27, 2019 1:26 pm
Location: Community Moderation Abuse Watch
Has thanked: 105 times
Been thanked: 24 times

Tone policing

Post by CMAwatch » Fri Nov 15, 2019 1:45 am

Also, that tone policing culture needs to stop.

Handroid7 has any right to criticize Bbb23, according to Wikipedia's own policy!

And his criticism is perfectly legitimate.

The logic of the ban evasion policy is flawed, because it does not even allow users to prove that they are legitimately interested in improving Wikipedia.

And when Handroid7, and also Aron Manning, talked in a civil way, Bbb23 just kills their talk page access.

I don't understand how Bbb23 does not get blocked for vandalizing Wikipedia and mass-deleting valid redirects and good articles.

Bbb23 does not care about contents, just about crazy policing, evidently.

User avatar
CMAwatch
Sucks Critic
Posts: 305
Joined: Sun Oct 27, 2019 1:26 pm
Location: Community Moderation Abuse Watch
Has thanked: 105 times
Been thanked: 24 times

What matters more?

Post by CMAwatch » Sat Nov 16, 2019 6:21 pm

If Wikipedia cares more about some block in the past by some editor than his actual good content, then Wikipedia is seriously flawed, especially Bbb23.


Bbb23 removed legitimate redirects and articles for the sake of deleting pages and increasing his deletion count he is likely proud of.

Readers of Wikipedia care more about Handroid7's good content than the sake of rule G5, which even states that the deletion needs to be directly related to the user's block.

Bbb23 needs to go.

User avatar
Abd
Sucks Warrior
Posts: 742
Joined: Mon Nov 27, 2017 11:22 pm
Has thanked: 74 times
Been thanked: 41 times

Re: What matters more?

Post by Abd » Sat Nov 16, 2019 7:24 pm

CMAwatch wrote:Bbb23 needs to go.
This is the language of disempowerment. By pretending that "need" exists in the disliked object, one avoids responsibility. Who has the "need" and what is real about it? Then, what is possible? "Bbb23 gone" is not particularly inspiring. Someone else would be found to fill the role, that's how structure on this scale works. The lack of clear specificity perpetuates the disempowerment, in which a persistent complainer can feel that he or she is confronting "bad behavior," without having any responsibility for outcome.

We learned as children that if we complained enough, someone, generally our parents, would give in. It worked. And even when it stops working, we continue the behavior, this is all well-known human psychology. So what is possible and what, if anything, stops us from doing it?

Post Reply